The Other Crazies Are Out There…. (Part 2)

We can never, ever truly know a pain we haven’t lived through. We can sympathize, and we can wring our hands, but we can’t say we genuinely understand unless we’ve been there. And that is truth, undeniable.

Sympathy is not wasted, and authentic efforts to better understand the struggles of others are not mere patronization. But there will always remain a clear divide between those who have endured a particular brand of life-altering obstacle and those who have not. Accepting this reality does not exclude us from supporting loved ones in pain, nor does it contribute to any concept of a ranking system for life’s turmoil. It’s just, for lack of better articulation, the way it is.

I will never truly know what my husband feels at a fellow firefighter’s funeral. If it took you six months to get pregnant, I can’t say we share a bond of infertility, either. Those who fight for the rights of rape victims do not process the concept of rape the same way as a woman who has been victimized. We can care about one another from the bottom of our guts — and we should – but the line is indelible and needs to be acknowledged.

When people take up that line, however, and choose to whip it in every direction; or when those who have endured and survived choose to use their survival as an impervious barrier to meaningful dialogue and potential progress; my sympathy wanes, and eventually ceases. I rarely feel inclined to play armchair psychologist; let people lay down their own money (or insurance cards) for professional help when they need it. But it seems fairly evident that shutting others out in a time of pain is a very basic defense mechanism. Aligning only with those who’ve suffered similarly seems a straightforward way of insulating ourselves. And if survivors need a period of self-preservation and relative isolation as they heal, I can respect that. It’s when that shield, that self-segregation mutates into carefully sculpted hostility that I no longer feel compelled to respect someone’s pain, because ‘respecting’ it has evolved into being accosted by it.

If you’ve been the victim of racial, religious, gender or sexuality based discrimination, I will absolutely fight for you. But if you hate me for what happened to you, we’re not on the same side anymore. Frankly, I don’t think we’re even in the same war at that point.

I don’t doubt for a second that there are shady adoptions still happening in this country and around the world. I do not question that some couples sneak past a home study when they are not fit to parent. I am certain that many women who have relinquished babies to adoptive parents wish they could have it all to do over. And that there are those who were wishing this as they signed the papers. As I posted previously, there are adoptive parents who disgrace us all, and they have armies of lawyers or agencies or social workers who may be no better.

I have read a LOT of blogs and articles from those whom we commonly categorize as ‘anti-adoption,’ or whom we could at least recognize as opposing certain aspects of adoption as an institution. I have considered and reconsidered a number of facets of adoption, thanks to the men and women who are brave enough to speak frankly and proactively about much-needed changes to policies and practices — some to which I was completely oblivious, and others I had never examined through the lens of another’s experiences. Thanks to those who speak their truths when it is often initially unwelcome by adoptive parents, I am now an emphatic supporter of open records and legally enforceable adoption agreements. I completely altered my stance on adoptive parents in the delivery room after a beautiful but unequivocal blog posting by a birthmother. I may not agree with every word she says, but I don’t know how any adoptive parent could deny some of the hard truths she is sharing based on her own experience. And she is incontestably doing so — eviscerating the most tender elements of her most difficult experience — to help others better understand the choices and subsequent repercussions in front of them.

And then, by contrast, there are the crazies. If fear and ignorance drive the crazy adoptive parents, then unresolved anger and an overdeveloped sense of precedence or congruity drive this coexistent brand of lunacy. But rather than delve further into amateur psychology, I’ll just share a little of what’s out there, just as I did with regard to adoptive parents. These are a smattering of what I’ve encountered since first researching adoption at the end of 2005, up through some of the more fabulous hate mail I’ve received on this blog. Many more adoptive parents than me have encountered this level of venom and the semi-organized e-deluge that accompanies it. As an anti-racist activist — and a high school teacher — I’m way past letting the opinions of others determine my sleep patterns. But in the interest of balance, and of educating those who might not know that this caliber of animosity exists on the internet, here are some of my favorites….

Adoptees who love their adoptive parents and/or do not feel compelled to search for or connect further with their biological families are called ‘Baby Toms.’ This is one of my favorites, and not just for its gratuitous literary allusion. The core idea here suggests that adoptees are enslaved, and thus possess a slave mentality that drives them to unquestioning loyalty of and subservience to their adoptive parents — hence the analogy to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. But if we are to respect an adoptee’s choice to search and reunite with their birth families, as I believe is their right and choice, then we must also respect their right not to search and reunite, else we defy the concept of choice. This term also seems applicable by its users to adoptees who do not speak out against adoption, or, worse yet, who question or criticize the crazies. It’s divisive, it’s disrespectful, and it’s ridiculous.

I am clearly an unfit mother for making jokes about expectant mother parking spaces at Babies ‘R Us. Clearly. “This ‘joke’,’ she said, “is not a good indication of being prepared to adopt and care for a child.” Or somebody felt desperately hard-up for something to object about on my blog. Back to the drawing board for me, I guess, because an anonymous internet poster doesn’t appreciate my humor. I’ll alert the social worker.

Rather than spending money on adoption, adoptive parents should give money to expectant mothers so they can raise their babies with more financial stability. In other words, if we (adoptive parents) really cared about these babies, we would use our apparently limitless financial resources to bankroll someone raising a child, rather than providing a home and family for a child whose mother has decided she is not ready, willing or able to parent. Because, after all, money is all it takes. And we should provide it, because these babies are categorically better off with their natural mothers. No, I’m not kidding. I actually followed this argument on an ancient online adoption community, right before it went down in a ball of squabbling flames. I’m pretty sure the point of the argument was to back adoptive parents into a guilt-ridden corner: if you cared so much, THIS is what you’d do. Instead, the message I received revolved around the small portion of the online community who exert their presence for the cardinal purpose of demeaning others. In the interest of balance in the universe, I strongly encourage ALL parents to donate baby gear, clothes, diapers and funds to their local women’s shelter or similar organization to assist needy moms and families. As a charitable society, we should do what we can to help others raise the babies they have chosen to raise. But other than a sense of karma, this is not because I have adopted.

Adoptive parents can’t disagree with adoptees or birthparents on issues of adoption, because we can’t know their pain. This one is trickier. As asserted earlier, nope — I can’t know anyone else’s experiences but my own. However, if we are only entitled to opinions on matters in our direct bank of experiences, then I couldn’t have an opinion on war, immigration, gay rights, or countless other matters that do not directly impact my individual life. Back here in reality, though, we educate ourselves on the issues we care about, and we coagulate informed stances on complex topics. These opinions are ideally thought through and mercifully malleable as issues evolve and our knowledge increases. But herein lies the abuse of the aforementioned line between those who have and have not endured an experience. It acts as an at-the-ready conversational killswitch. Someone disagrees with you? Shut ‘em down; they don’t know your pain. And the brilliant function of this defensive posture is its catch-all applicability. It’s the rhetorical sludge of the internet age: I, me, my trumps all. It’s also the irony of online communities.

When preparing to adopt, a reflective parent-to-be wants to know all she can about adoption — and not just from the vantage point from which she will experience it. We should do all we can to comprehend the scope of adoption as it exists in our country and around the world before we count ourselves among its willing participants. We should read opinions we find ridiculous, and then read them again just to be sure, and then maybe look at them again down the line to see if there isn’t a grain of challenging truth behind even the most venomous opposition to the institution that will build our families. Often, among the highly human flaws of these and all bloggers, there are facets of adoption we would not have otherwise considered. There are choices and consequences minimized by our agencies, our families or ourselves. We owe it to our children to understand all we can.

Every once in a while, there is just angry craziness, and we can dizzy ourselves trying to make sense of it. These bullies are by far not the first to wrap themselves in a seemingly noble cause as a means to unleash their personal shit on the universe. You can’t fix them; you can’t ‘beat’ them. That’s another beauty of the internet. Every keyboard comes with a sense of infallible entitlement and singular righteousness. A hopeful adoptive parent can blog about how she knows Jesus will intervene and make that pregnant girl give up her baby, and a deeply damaged adoptee can e-writhe over the wrongs of her life and lay it all at the feet of the institution of adoption, and both of them are certain of their Truth. They have only their self-selecting circle of adoring readers to agree with them whole-heartedly — along with the doe-eyed glow of their screens, shedding an artificial light on their own special brand of crazy.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

65 Responses to “The Other Crazies Are Out There…. (Part 2)”

Wow, I wrote posts like this after we continued to be attacked after our adoption disruption and they were waaaaaay less well written than this. Props to you for being so articulate in a time like this!

I am sorry that it sounds like the haters and the crazies continue to harass you after what happened to you. It is the lowest form of bullying to kick someone when they are down. I wasn’t sure I could survive more anger and negativity directed at me after our disruption. Luckily there was very little of it to survive. But it’s awful and I am so sorry you are going through this. I am there for you if you need me (2momsadopt).

Thank you, but I’m not actually ‘going through’ anything right now — just the predictable stream of hate mail from this posting. But I consciously waited until we WEREN’T in the middle of an adoption, or HADN’T just welcomed a baby into our family, because I didn’t want to write this out of raw emotion. I wanted to really think it through, and I did.

I know myself, and I know my family. I also know enough about the social and psychological implications of the internet age to recognize this brand of bullying for what it is.

If I were where you and your partner were, and I followed your story closely, I know I wouldn’t feel as strong. But I’m okay with it, or I wouldn’t have published this. Thank you again.

Ladies and gentlemen, it took longer than I thought, but they have arrived. Shining examples of the hostility and senselessness that sadly shade online adoption discourse. I’ll post their comments for a bit, because they’re worth reading for a number of reasons, and then I’ll take them down and let them go back to screeching in their own corners of the internet. Now then….
———————————
I’m sorry that you seem to need things kept simpler, both rhetorically and ethically. What if I couldn’t carry a child because I’d been a victim of sexual assault, and the damage left me infertile, as is the case for many women? What if my own mother’s rampant drinking left its mark? Nature intends women to be abused and permanently damaged as a result? Nature intends an alcoholic to destroy her own body and those of her children? Nature can eff off, if that’s the case.

So what exactly is the acceptable level of anger in adult adoptees? What is the level of anger that can make adoptive parents feel smug about listening to us and “supporting” us but that doesn’t threaten the status quo that says decimating families and communities is an acceptable thing to do?

What if you had? That would be a tragedy and something to grieve but that doesn’t make adoption okay

“I’m sorry that you seem to need things kept simpler, both rhetorically and ethically.”

Good writing IS simple, not the rhetoric purged here. The first two paragraphs ought to have been slashed, for starters. No need to apologize…

“What if I couldn’t carry a child because I’d been a victim of sexual assault, and the damage left me infertile, as is the case for many women? What if my own mother’s rampant drinking left its mark?”

Still doesn’t give you the right to bully a woman into surrendering her child(ren) to you, no matter what the conditions. A child shouldn’t have to lose his family because a woman can’t have her own children. Stupid (or should I say “simple”?) argument.

“Nature intends women to be abused and permanently damaged as a result? Nature intends an alcoholic to destroy her own body and those of her children? Nature can eff off, if that’s the case.”

No one ever said the children of addicts shouldn’t be raised by them, so that’s a bullshit argument. But you probably didn’t adopt kids who were the children of drunks then, did you? Nah, you want ‘em as *clean* as possible, right? Just as you would have made them, had nature endowed you that gift…

“Too complicated for you? Am I running a little long, word-wise?”

“Complicated”? LOL. No, just boring. You’re no where near as bright as you think you are. And not as moral, either.

“You’re an idiot. But thanks for stopping by.”

Short, declarative sentence-good for you! Maybe there’s hope for you yet. Women like you don’t make me “angry”, just disgusted. And I feel so sad for your “boys”.

I’m not finished, no. You keep reinforcing my points, and I’ll keep publishing it. And I’ll let most of what you’ve said speak for itself, including our divergent tastes in writing, but a few clarifications:

I didn’t ‘bully’ anyone. I explicitly told both women that I didn’t want to adopt a baby that they weren’t certain about placing. The rest is not for public sharing, because they deserve privacy more than you deserve the details.

And *I* was raised by a drunk, whose substance usage may or may not have left its genetic mark on my ability to have children. I have never cared enough about the cause of my infertility to find out. But if that’s the case, just as if it were a result of abuse, I don’t think that falls under what nature intended.

Adoption affects adoptees for life. Even if the biological parents truly couldn’t be parents. Even if the adoptive parents are the best parents ever. The effects are multi-faceted: human rights, civil rights, psychological, medical, social, etc.

Are you on the front lines? Do you write every senator and representative to strike down the discriminatory laws? Do you blog, tweet and email your family and friends with the research you’ve done and request that they too protest the government for a redress of the injustices?

Sometimes adoptees are in shock, sometimes they lash out, and sometimes they act like good little Stockholm Syndrome sufferers. So what? They’re all subject to living their entire lives in a demi-monde reality that is illegal in every other country than the States. Shaming the victims who don’t act the way you think they should around you (not grateful enough, huh?) is doing your part to further the inequality and injustices for another generation. Is that really the side you want to be on?

It’s so weird — there’s nothing you say that I disagree with, until you imply that I’m a kidnapper, and then go on to speculate about what I expect from my sons. So close to a mutually respectful exchange!

A medical dictionary defines Stockholm Syndrome as “a group of psychological symptoms that occur in some persons in a captive or hostage situation.” By describing adoptees as ‘sometimes acting like good little Stockholm Syndrome sufferers,’ you suggest — and not subtly — that a kidnapping has occurred.

So what exactly is the acceptable level of anger in adult adoptees? What is the level of anger that can make adoptive parents feel smug about listening to us and “supporting” us but that doesn’t threaten the status quo that says decimating families and communities is an acceptable thing to do?

Why would I want to feel smug? Your two sentences are staggeringly loaded with assumptions. Who says there’s an acceptable level of anger? Who says my desire to support my children is artificial, as your “quotes” imply?

When did you stop beating your wife? (That’s the example question my dad always brought up when teaching us about rhetoric and loaded questions. Popped into my head when reading your comment.)

You clearly have an idea of my political participation, as well as my emotional thresholds. Or you don’t at all, and are still wildly speculating.

I wouldn’t dream of trying to predict how either of my children will feel about their adoptions. THAT would be imposing myself on their processing of the experience. However they feel — however angry they might be at one point, or another, or for however long — I’ll be there.

I don’t fathom unacceptable levels of anger. I spoke of unacceptable manifestations. I don’t accept that a complete stranger on the internet is correct in taking anger out on me or others. I’m not an eye-for-an-eye type. I don’t think oppression justifies mass murder, nor do I think one’s own unethical adoption justifies abject hostility toward all who adopt. That’s basic logic. One does not equal all, and should not be treated as such.

The notion of helping a mother with her child has nothing to do with “throwing money” at a problem, your aversion to which reveals your politics (see also: crack whore mothers getting free health care). How odd that you start out speaking about empathy and then segue into a defense of how you don’t have any empathy for mothers who find themselves in a particular situation, based on societal and systemic problems that would be fixable if people of your class and of your ilk decided that these women mattered, existed. You are not exempt from their lot culturally, politically, or economically. The notion that only those who speak in a certain way earn the right to be heard by you is a tactic that has been used to silence people within a power differential since forever. We know you, and we know your tactics. Everything you say could have been said about slaves on a plantation; you don’t get any points for not recognizing a civil rights issue simply because you are on the wrong side of the manor fence.

Which brings us to a particular truth that is equally inarguable: Adoption is, in and of itself, a violence based in inequality; it is candy-coated, marketed, and packaged to appear to concern families and children, but it is an economically and politically incentivized crime that stems culturally speaking from the “peculiar institution” of Anglo-Saxon indentured servitude and not family creation. It is not universal and is not considered valid by most communal cultures, globally speaking. It is a treating of symptoms and not of disease; it is a negation of true families and an annihilation of their vital communities that are not imbued with the intrinsic human value taken for granted by those adopting for reasons having to do with race, with class, and with a preconceived notion of what makes for a valid life in this world. We too are impressed by adoptive parents who understand this.

Especially for those of us who have returned to our lands of birth in the Third World from which we were kidnapped, your words are redolent of the colonizer, of the oppressor, of the occupier. And there is a revolution going on here. And one day it will catch up with you, and your “children” will be returned to their rightful place with their rightful families.

I think there are a lot of angry adoptees out there who are not crazy. They make some very valid points and their pain is real. Label them crazy all the time, but they have a right to be angry.

I’m an adoptee who came from a fantastic adoptive family. My family welcomed me with open arms. While they would talk about my adoption with me if I asked, they never treated me as any different from any other children. More often than not, they felt horrible that they could not always answer my questions but at the same time, they felt like I was their child. When I told them I wanted to search for my natural mother, they told me they would support me 100% but that I probably wouldn’t like what I found.

Once I found my natural family, I learned that the only reason I was given up was because my natural parents did not have the money to raise me at the time. My natural mother had recently lost her job and my natural father was still trying to figure out what he was going to do with his life. Had someone helped them out financially, they could have kept me. My point is that while money is not the only thing that you need to raise a child, at the time, this was the only thing that was lacking from my natural family. There are people who should not raise children. I’m not debating that fact. However, there are people out there who could and should raise their own children but just need a little help until they get back on their feet.

I have two sisters who are wonderful people. They went to private high school (I went to public school) and will probably both attend college. They were raised by my natural family. It was a question of money. By the time they came around, my natural parents were able to get stable jobs and save. It could be argued that had my adoptive parents really wanted what was best for me, they would have become my guardians until my natural family was able to figure things out. They could have had a place in my life without taking me away from my natural family. I don’t know if I would have wanted that, but I don’t see it as a crazy argument.

I don’t label anyone as crazy all the time. And I agree that anyone in pain has a right to their pain and anger over its source. Absolutely.

The finer points of your life and your collective parents’ decisions aren’t mine to evaluate. That’s one family’s story. The premise that couple’s shouldn’t seek to give any babies permanent homes, and should instead financially support a needy family, is not a broad-based or realistic solution.

Crazy is rarely embedded within an idea in and of itself. Crazy usually resides somewhere between motivation, connotation, and execution of an argument. And that’s all entirely subjective. A LOT of this is.

Thanks for what you’ve added here. It’s a very strong argument for women or couples to consider foster care or other temporary guardianship placement as an option aside from permanent relinquishment, and for state agencies to make such an option available.

You wrote: “…we would use our apparently limitless financial resources to bankroll someone raising a child, rather than providing a home and family for a child whose mother has decided she is not ready, willing or able to parent. Because, after all, money is all it takes.”

You are either willfully or negligently ignorant of what is going on in the world around you. Here’s some anecdotal information: I was threatened that if I did not cooperate with the adoption agency (they were masquerading as a Christian agency to help pregnant women in crisis… even ones who wanted to parent their babies.) that they would report me and have my child taken to foster care because I couldn’t afford to take care of my infant “properly.” I am not the only woman who has been financially coerced – nay, outright threatened – in order to obtain my child for profit. Financial coercion, I dare say, ranks at the top for reasons women give away their infants to strangers who promise the world.

Why is it that money isn’t important to adoptive families but it’s all that matters in natural ones? You are clearly seated in a privileged position and haven’t the slightest clue about the horror you participate in perpetuating.

Mothers and children are forever damaged by adoption on a regular basis. So yah, it does appear that money is all it takes.

I’m still stuck on you using the words ‘the world around you’ and following it with an individual anecdote. I don’t deny the awfulness of your story; I’ve overtly expressed my horror at shady, coercive adoption practices, particularly those carried out in the name of a god.

All too often, extreme sides of any argument employ anecdotes when it suits them, then swiftly disqualify and dismiss the anecdotes that don’t. Coerced birthmothers are near-universal, but happy adoptees are delusional and/or mythical? Handy.

And newsflash: I’m an urban public schoolteacher. My husband is a firefighter. Why does everyone need us to be rich?

Wow. I’m stunned at the responses to your post. I read this blog because I want to learn about adoption. I read other blogs because I want to learn about the topics on those blogs. I would never spend my time reading blogs for the purpose of attacking either the author or the content. Perhaps in spite of my age, I am still naive. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people. Sometimes people’s intentions are not in line with what is right to do. Surely, there are imperfect adoptions involving these kinds of people. I’m sorry about that. We should all do better. In an ideal world, adoption would not even be necessary, but this world is the one we have. Millions of children have been provided with the homes they needed at the time they needed it. Other children didn’t and won’t. Like paperpregnancy, I have worked in public schools for years. I spent a lot of time admiring all kinds of families and just as much time hurting for the students who needed a different situation. My first husband was an adoptee. He had issues, but he never blamed them on his family or the fact that he was adopted. A recent local news story reported a four-month-old baby with second- and third-degree chemical burns he received from his mother’s and grandmother’s meth lab. His father is in prison. Are you telling me that child will be better off staying with his biological family than having the chance at adoption? Living with a biological family guarantees NOTHING! Neither does being adopted. At some point, we take charge of ourselves and can only hope that what we’ve learned along the way leads us to a path of happiness and success, no matter how we define them. The path leading to adoption, no matter from which direction you come, can be paved with painful experiences. It’s not landscaped with impulse or bricked with gold and as with most things in this life, everyone involved has the right to change directions. If we choose to pursue adoption, we’ll be the best parents we can be. Imperfect? Yep, just as our biological parents were.

There are people out there who should not have children. This is a very good point. However, there is a difference between abusive biological parents and abusive adoptive parents. Adoptive parents promise to look after the best interest of the child. They promise to raise them in a way that biological parents cannot. They actively seek the child. To me, it just seems like someone who gets past home visits and who puts all this effort in to get a child, it’s ten times worse to abuse the child.

Also, you are basing your argument off of one adoptee that you know. There are seven million Americans out there who have been adopted. While your first husband did not attribute his issues to his adoption, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t steam from it or that other people cannot have issues based on adoption. But please don’t take my word for it. I’m not an expert. There are lots of people out there who are much smarter and more educated than I am that have written books about the physiological trauma of adoption. Try “Primal Wound” by Nancy Verrier M.A., any of Betty J Lifton PhD’s book on adoption (there are three), and “The Adoption Mystique” by Joanne Wolf Small. These are just a few of the many books which have been written and reviewed. There are also a number of articles out there to look into.

So while everyone has a hard life, it is generally accepted that there are psychological issues that do come with adoption that adoptees must try to overcome on top of the trials of everyday life. It’s my belief that adoptive parents need to be aware of these issues so that they can help their children deal with them and cope with being adopted. It’s all about educating yourself before you run into problem with your child. Both the adoptive parent and the adopted child will be grateful for it later.

Just for clarity’s sake I will add that your description of the Baby Tom is inaccurate. Baby Tom is used in the same way Uncle Tom is, you are right about that correlation, but it has nothing to do with pull or non-pull to genetic parents, wanting reunion or not wanting reunion .

It is a derogatory term used to describe certain adoptees who refuse to shed the mantle of looking at adoption through their adoptive parent’s or other adopter’s point of view. Adoptees that go around insisting, on forums, adopter blogs and whatnot that they never had an issue, that adoptive parents are always in the right. I have seen some even denigrate biological parents i.e. ‘my adoptive parents always gave kids rides to softball practice none of the biological kids parents cared about them.’ That would be a BabyTom statement.

I know adoptees personally who don’t want to search, who haven’t, who are not BabyToms, I know adoptees personally who have searched and found and care a great deal for their natural families but are also glad they were adopted. They are not BabyToms. I know adoptees who have been abused in their adoptive families and their natural families.

Adoptees are like all other people, we live in a family context, it is difficult for some, less for others.

There are a myriad of experiences. I resent that person telling you that, you would be alone as NATURE intended. I found that rather cruel and don’t believe that the foul-ups of nature should be blamed upon the victim anymore than I believe I should be treated as a second class citizen because I am a bastard.

I am not sure, but suspect that my own adoptive mom was infertile because of sexual abuse and that has always weighed heavy on my heart.

I read your other post too, about adoptive parents and you ascribed their craziness to feal and ignorance, you left out entitlement and arrogance. I am not going to say that adoptees and natural parents can’t act crazy, of course we can. We have been so marginalized and traumatized, and yeah, even if it is a good experience on the balance sheet, which I believe my personal adoption was, it was still hugely traumatic. It is still the worst thing that happened to me.

A lot of us will react like animals backed into the corner of cage, because that is what happens if we speak honestly about how hurtful it is to be seperated from our tribe. It hurts so much most of us cannot even face it.

Surely, you can relate. I can’t tell you how much it hurts not to create a child that is an expression of your love for your husband. You cannot know what it is like for your mother to give you away to strangers.

So you can sit in smug judgment with these people who are angry, call them perjoratives like crazy. Adoption does hurt people though, and if through their craziness, that is how they express it, that is still evidence. You still took part in it.

I hope for the best for your family because I am a big goo-believer and like the best outcomes if I don’t like Hollywood movies.

But maybe you can pause in the future, and understand why your dismissivness is hurtful, why terms like ‘paperpregant” are hurtful, which I know you, so I know you did before you started this blog. That it was provocative too.

I know you have been hurt, I know you are a real person, but we are too.

I can’t believe I’m going to sit here and declare how much I love Joy and a number of her posts, because five years ago, I was pretty sure she was the devil. Maybe I’ve changed (I have), and maybe we both have, but now I read her razor-sharp, pointed hypothetical Socratic exchanges on her blog, and they’re brilliant. AGAIN, we may not agree on a few things, but I learn from her.

Joy, even when you are notably livid about something, I still always see something I needed to see. Sometimes it takes a second read, after rolling the ideas around a bit, but it’s always there, and I overwhelmingly feel like I have a broader understanding as a result. And your taste in music is sick.

I actually had no idea that the title of my blog would ruffle so many feathers. It’s a tongue-in-cheek-y kind of term for adoptive parents, and I chose it in a tongue-in-cheek-y kind of way. Certainly not to be provocative in a hostile sense, but perhaps to lead people to examine the term, take ownership of it. That’s how I perceive blogs with titles like ‘Bastard Nation’ or ‘Pound Pup Legacy.’ But I did like when a hate-mailer asked me if I was expecting a paper fetus. Yes. Yes, I am.

I don’t sit in ‘smug judgment’ of anyone, but I do get to assess how people treat others, including me. I don’t judge someone’s anger or other emotions as correct or incorrect, but emotions don’t entitle people to treat others badly and then, in turn, enjoy immunity from being deemed a jerk. Pain is not an entitlement, for ANYBODY.

And Baby Tom is bothersome because it judges someone’s feelings toward their own adoption. If no one should categorize ‘angry adoptees’ in a derogatory manner, then no one should do the same to ‘happy adoptees.’

But this post wasn’t about anyone’s entitlement to anger or happiness, just as my (far less flammable) post on crazy adoptive parents wasn’t a condemnation of THEIR feelings. Both posts are about the manifestations of the extreme ends of the adoption spectrum, and how it plays out online.

Though I wouldn’t use the phrase “Baby Tom” myself, to me that would be someone who refers to their APs as saviours and their BPs as incubators and sperm donors without knowing anything about their BPs. Usually someone who calls their BPS incubators and sperm donors will say that that means they don’t care anything about their birthparents whereas to me it is actually as sign that that person actually feels so “abandoned” by them (even though their bmother may have had no real choice) that they have to reduce that effect by calling them nasty names. I usually really feel sorry for those people as they obviously have unresolved issues.

If someone has no wish in meeting their bfamily that is their right. It is an emotional thing and not to be undertaken lightly. However, if they know nothing about their bparents, they should at least acknowledge that they are human beings, not vessels to carry them from God to their APs arms (as I have heard some APs say)

Leslie…NO ONE said that it’s ever better for a child to remain with an abusive parent. What is wrong with legal guardianship?

As for your first husband, perhaps he never explored the possibility that some of his issues DID have to do with being adopted. I know that until I was reunited with my natural mother, I hid my head in a hole and pretended that my aparents were saints. Coming out of the fog I’ve come to realize that yes, I have to take responsibility for my actions, but many of those actions are a direct result of being adopted.

It’s very easy for non-adopted folks to stand on that pedestal and say, “Your life could have been just as screwed up had you grown up with your biological family!”…the problem is, we weren’t given that choice to find out.

Christina, on the other hand, would like to imagine she’s as reflective and articulate as Joy, but she’s really a trainwrecked attempt at being a bully. She gives out these wildly self-important awards to adoptive parents’ blogs, encouraging heavy traffic and commenting their way to explicitly shame people — some of whom do, indeed, say some incredibly knuckle-headed things and could stand to learn more about more respectful approaches to adoption issues. And, as we all know, public shaming and overt hostility are how people learn best, so we should all be really thankful that Christina takes (a lot of) her time to weed through them and make the world a better place through cyberbullying.

I feel for people who care what this woman says. At more vulnerable points in our lives, harsh words (founded or unfounded) can really send us spinning. Christina writes ad nauseum of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her adoptive parents, which is, needless to say, a tragedy. But she also functions as evidence of the adage that victims of abuse grow up to be abusive themselves, and clearly it’s not passed genetically.

‘What she has just said’ is not the extent of our discourse. I’m referring to her overall approach. And in light of that, she isn’t worth replying to. And it’s not because she’s an adoptee, angry or otherwise. It’s because she’s a jerk, and she’s not worth the time or effort.

For three days, I’ve dutifully posted every word of reply that people sent — no editing, no ignoring. At this point, I’ll continue to post people’s comments, but I’m not going to spend any further ‘break’ time at work — quotes because teachers don’t really get breaks anyway — refereeing. Lag time on comment approval will be higher, and some folks might need to stick to their own pages for a place to call me names if they need to do that.

As an adoptive parent, have you considered the possibility that your children might struggle with the same issues we are advocating? If so, have you considered the possibility that they may someday confront these issues & realize that they were just as hurt & angry as the adoptees you dismiss?

Apathy is not a sign of a well-adjusted person in any circumstance… You seem to have an interest in psychology, so you are probably aware of the stages of grief. If so, you should know that denial is a legitimate concern & that anger is actually a very important stage in the grieving process.

As an adoptive parent, it is your responsibility to validate this anger no matter how hard it might be for you. If you truly had an open mind & desire to understand something as complex & unique as the adoptee perspective, you would listen to those who even have contempt for adoption.

No, not every adoptee wishes to reunite with their first family. Regardless, complete disinterest in ones origin, medical history (& so really their long-term health), etc is not what should be seen as the well-adjusted adoptee.

Scarlett — I found myself repeating the word ‘absolutely’ as I read your comments, and not even with regard to one section over another. What you say about apathy, anger, grief — all of it — are dead on. I consider deeply what my sons will struggle with, and what I can and can not do to help. I am grateful that both of my sons were born of women with fiery dispositions — women who take crap from no one, and I love both of them for it, and hope that my sons develop that kind of fire, both from them and from me. Frankly, I would worry far more if they WERE apathetic.

I only disagree that I am categorically dismissing adoptees. I’m not dismissing anyone, nor their feelings. For not the first time, let me clarify that I am dismissing unwarranted hostility and internet psychoses. There are no acceptable or unacceptable levels of anger or grief. There are, however, inexcusable means of communicating those feelings.

“I have a right to be heard!”

“Yes! And I have a right to be completely put off by how you say things, and thus have no desire to listen anymore!”

And that bit of dialogue goes both ways, I realize. Folks are equally entitled to be put off by what I say and/or how I say it, and are cordially invited to never read another word.

So sorry you have to go through this and acknowledge this group. They use their “private” forums to rally together and attack people online. If that’s not the definition of cyberbullying, then I don’t know what is.

I really think their core message is valid, but it quickly becomes lost in their words and actions. They hurt their cause more than help. Which leads me to believe that they aren’t really interested in adoption reform. They just want to rant and dump their baggage on others.

Truly, the best thing to do is ignore them. They are like diseased scavengers that scurry along the bottom of the food chain. The second you stop feeding them, they move on.

I LOVE this post! I have never seen your blog before, was directed here by a friend, and am so impressed and relieved that someone finally called the crazies on their insanity and “their truth” which all must accept or be hunted down or shunned as heretics and traitors.

I am a birthmother, long-time adoption reform activist,I wanted to keep my child. The son I gave up was not in a good home, but has grown to be a fine, good man. I was among the bitter and angry for many years, but I hope never among the unreasonable, hateful and crazy, and have changed my views on adoption greatly in the past 35 years or so I have been involved in adoption reform.

I am very frustrated and upset by most birthmother and some adoptee blogs of the kind you mention, the anti-adoption, cult-like, anti-rational thought crowd. What they are pitching is pure bigotry, with ALL adoptive parents as the enemy, all adoptees stolen, bought and enslaved, and all surrendering mothers forever blameless victims. Also, all problems in the lives of adoptees and birthmothers are caused by adoption trauma which is incurable and everlasting, and nothing is ever their fault.

Anyone who dares question any of this becomes a cartoon enemy and tool of the mythical and all-powerful Adoption Industry, and a traitor to “Real” mothers and primally wounded adoptees. You are absolutely right about these people tolerating no dissent, and preaching to their own syncophantic choir of like-minded followers. They reinforce each other in their bitterness and victimhood, and hate anyone who dares go beyond that mindset.

Thanks for writing this, and for taking the flak that it engendered. It is good to be reminded that there are still some people in adoption reform who are capable of dialogue, rational thought, and seeing beyond “their truth” to the larger and much more complex picture.

Lord, I just love “Keyboard Commandos” that hide behind the anonymity of the interwebz to make stuff up that suits their particular version of how the world works, or more pointedly, how it should all work “if they were king”.

No dissent or discussion is allowed or considered by them as they emit their own haze of self satisfied “smug” as they type.

This column is priceless, from a critique on editing, from someone that seems to struggle to complete a sentence properly, to passive aggressive raging on how things ought to be and “I know what will happen in 20 years with these children”. Boy, if you’re that good I want you to tell me what the lottery numbers are for next week, so I can quit this crummy job!

The “return to their native land” response was particularly interesting. I’ll set my normal xenophobia aside for a moment and just ask … what if “their native land” is Ohio bub? Then the kids would grow up and have to root for the Indians, and that’s a horrible fate for any child.

Thankfully there are far more intelligent and understanding people here. They are truly interested in the stages, feelings, structure and the ultimate rewards of the adoption process and they far outnumber the angry, self aggrandizing know-it-alls, with some odd, ego driven morality play going on between their ears that gets a rewrite every night or two.

Take heart all of you families to be and don’t let a bunch of whiners and crazies deter you in the least.

I’m an member of their adoption forum, and it’s always the same stuff from the same small group of bullies. They whine and moan about how horrible people are to them, and then turn around and act mean, mean, mean about women who are infertile. It’s weird. They’re always looking for drama.

Some people on there are really supportive and it’s great for that. It’s too bad a select few have decided the way we should ALL feel.

Oh well, at least it’s comedy when I read that Daniel is wondering what on earth your comment meant and needs two people to explain it to him, that Joy has her feelings hurt, and having to hear the same old language from Linda and Christina, who love to throw around words like Rotten Eggs and Infertile Cows.

Wow! I am glad I could provide some comic relief for you Mary, laughter is so important.

Yeah, my feelings were hurt, most often I have a very rhinoceros-like skin because I have heard so much of it before, but definetly sometimes the on-line, or maybe not just on-line but the rarely spoken of cruelty just gets to me, really overwhelms me. Good luck finding a support group that will endorse you mocking members and repeating things they said in private.

In other news, I want to say that for the record, if anyone is keeping them, I do not support in any fashion mocking people because they suffer from infertility. I don’t know exactly why my aparents were infertile, they don’t discuss things like that with me. My clues are, my amom was raped as a toddler, my afather was exposed to chemicals as a very young man in the Vietnam war, and a lot of people from his top-secret mission ended up adopting. Neither of those events are the slightest bit funny to me or things I want to blame them for or things that mean nature intended them to ‘be alone’ they are heart-breakers.

I love my aparents, and I dare anyone to find any evidence to the contrary, which again is the rub of adoption for me. I can’t wish myself unadopted, that would be wishing people I love out of my life, I think the world of them. I feel sad that they couldn’t have their own bio-kids because they would have been really awesome people. I can’t wish that I was their bio-kid because I wouldn’t be me, and I can’t wish away my natural family because I love them too.

It is fucked-up, and hard for me, and hurts my fee-fees, which you will be glad and sent into hilarity to know Mary.

More about infertility, of course, I know my aparent’s experience is somewhat extreme but I want to make it perfectly clear if you got chalmydia when you 14 and ended up infertile, that is also a cruel fate and not funny to me. There is no experience that is excepted for me, infertility is not funny. I have said that I think I have infertility issues, srsly, going to the dentist and having her joke, ‘at least you aren’t pregnant’ to my ears I think, “what if I was trying to be?” I am very sensitive to it, being the emo bitch that I am.

I kind of can’t relate to it, because my child bearing pain comes from being fertile and not having a lifestyle that could accomodate that and that is a different kind of pain, but painful nonetheless.

For someone who is overwhelmed by internet cruelty, you certainly seem to participate in a lot of it.

There’s a lot of things that need to be changed in adoption and different ways to go about it. What I don’t understand or agree with, is the need for a support forum to point out blogs and direct a bunch of cruel and misguided adoptees to run over and abuse and threaten them, and then hooray and cheer over getting their blogs closed. I have news for you. THEY HAVE STILL ADOPTED. You haven’t changed anything except that now they are LESS likely to listen to anything you say and the person who suffers is…the adoptee. It’s not helping the message, and that’s what I don’t appreciate. There are some very real things that need to be changed, and trying to make other people hurt isn’t going to get anyone to listen. Why not try to actually reason with someone, explain why what they wrote might be taken offensively, instead of threaten them with blogs of shame, or making fun of them for things that are out of their control (and yes Linda, infertility is a reason to feel hurt too, being an adoptee doesn’t mean we are the only people allowed to suffer).

I’ve been a member of that forum for over a year now, and I don’t post very often because the cruelty I see on the boards really bothers me.

You can all sit behind your computers and keep doing what you’re doing, I’ll be out working for real reform.

And that’s all I’m going to say about this. If anything, I’ve learned that arguing with some of you is a huge waste of time.

I know re: the cruelty, that is why the feeling was so overwhelming. I can’t really explain it and doubt you care. It was just the incredible vastness of the cruelty both inside and outside of myself that overwhelmed me.

Which per se there is nothing wrong with if that is how the commenter feels but lets look at her method because a Baby Tom needs both elements:

2) Securing her position by ridiculing and mischaracterizing fellow adoptees (this can also be done with bio-families i.e. mothers who don’t adopt don’t really care about their kids)

So Mary, who I don’t even know who she is, would love to have her IP though if you feel generous to help her rid herself of the free support group I help run but doesn’t live up to her expectations.

See? It really has nothing to do with how someone like Mary feels about her personal situation, I have no idea how she feels, I don’t know who she is. The key elements are sucking-up to those with the cultural capital via betraying your fellow adoptees, which most anyone can relate to not liking what they say in confidence repeated back in a mocking fashion.

Despite Mary thinking she is securing her place in your readers hearts as the “good kind of adoptee” I know some of them are thinking, “boy I sure wouldn’t like it if someone from a group I looked to for support pulled an Iscariot on my ass”

It is about betraying your own kind and even yourself like Uncle Tom. It has nothing to do with how you feel about your mommies.

I don’t know who Mary is or what your personal quarrel with her might be, but for someone who claims to be against mocking and being cruel to others, this characterization of Mary as a “Baby Tom” seems as cruel and mocking as it gets. Looks like bullying to me.

And while I appreciate your overly kind comments to me PP2.0, which is a really odd name to call you, I could HAVE SO DONE WITHOUT, you comparing me to Christina in a hurtful way. It really did overwhelm me, I am me in all my Joyness and hate to be compared and it hurt my fee-fees. We are all different and I know that you know that.

That is the thing with you, I know you know a lot. I think even back in the day we had some sweet exchanges, but maybe I am just being obtuse. I can be. You also made the coolest baby-blanket ever,no, I didn’t say that, oh yes I did. Yeah, the music thing, that has stuck in my craw at times, lol.

I think I get why you made this post, I think I understand it. It is just all so fucked-up because it is people trying to communicate through this veil of trauma and that is really hard.

And I will take the hits to my smug comments and that is okay, I mean I laid it out there. You totally didn’t get what I meant about the BabyToms, my whole M.O. is to get adoptees to feel empowered enough to feel however they particularly feel about their own lives. To make adoptees feel as important as any real kid, and I don’t think you will find any evidence to the contrary.

As far as Maryanne’s comments about adoptees being all cult-like, I have disagreed in this post with some of them and have yet to get my walking papers. I am not afraid of getting any retribution. I disagree/agree with adoptees all the time,we are just like real kids who have different experiences and points of view.

Oh I could say more, all day long, about Venn diagrams and whatnot, but listen, you have my email from my post. If you want to know what I mean when I say ‘babytom’ or anything you can email me, and I will respond. I would love to have you on our side and don’t think you are far from it. Unlike Mary, anything you say to me in private, no matter how pissed off I may get at a later date, will stay private. People who were once my friends and now hate me can attest to that. I loves me integrity.

I’m not comparing you as human beings, let alone as adoptees. I compared your approaches to discussing complex and often inflammatory adoption issues, because I think you might both be perceived by some — particularly newbies — as cut from the same cloth, and you’re NOT.

I *would* like to discuss the term ‘Baby Tom’ further, as I just can’t shake its implications and origins to see it as a good term to have around. I’ll email you when I get some imaginary free time.

And I think we’re a lot closer to the ‘same side’ too. *My* M.O. is to encourage current and future adoptive parents to look at adoption from multiple angles, to consider finer points, and to question the most common perceptions and presentations of the process. And THIS post, from the start, was about understanding the range of rhetoric out there, because more than a few waiting couples or recent adoptive parents — including myself five years ago — feel blindsided by abject hostility, and as a result might never want to engage in discussions with adoptees or birthparents again. It’s the worst possible outcome, and I’ve never stopped wondering — because I’m a medium-sized conspiracy theorist — why anyone would want that conversation shut down.

Not sure about others reading here but I’d love to be further educated on the derogatory term BabyTom and how it’s meant to empower adoptees.

I’m especially interested in just who exactly is deemed qualified to determine which adoptees are refusing “to shed the mantle of looking at adoption through their adoptive parent’s or other adopter’s point of view.” and once diagnosed, just what are we to do with them?

Please, I encourage you to enlighten us all and to not take discussion of your number#1
favorite bit of craziness private.

You are right Campbell, it is not meant to empower all adoptees, certainly not BabyToms themselves, it is a derogatory term and you have caught me *not being very nice*

It is true. As hard as I try, I fail at being all love all the time, heck at even being half love half of the time.

There are people I don’t like and I don’t care for in this world, some of them are real kids and some of them are adopted. It is all true, I am a very naughty person with real and significant character flaws.

I don’t know what to do about it but get up and try again. I try to have compassion for all living creatures, really I do, I am not joking, but yes I absolutely fail a good deal of the time.

Joy wrote:”As far as Maryanne’s comments about adoptees being all cult-like, I have disagreed in this post with some of them and have yet to get my walking papers.”

I never said adoptees were “all cult-like”. Some adoptees, and some birthparents relate to each other and to anyone who disagrees with them in a cult-like manner, not allowing any deviation from their standard script of how adoptees or mothers who surrendered should feel and express their feelings. This out there in blogland for anyone to observe.

Most adoptees, who are not part of these insular groups, do not do this, nor do most mothers,adoptive or natural. However, those who identify themselves as absolutely anti-adoption do come across as cult-like and sometimes disconnected from objective reality.

This seems like a really good time to return to the original idea and intention of this and the previous post — to acknowledge the pitfalls of online interaction about adoption.

I can’t even say ‘about the more sensitive aspects of adoption,’ because they’re ALL sensitive, and they should ALL ideally be discussed in a format that allows for context, tone of voice, and the other nuances that come with old-fashioned, face-to-face discourse. The double-edged sword of online discussion is that it allows for more voices to be heard and agreed or disagreed with, but also that so much of what allows for complex communication is stunted by the medium, if not muted altogether.

I’m gonna close down the squabbling here. I’m not cutting off comments, and this page will stay public as long as it exists. But this seems a good time to stop and breathe, and recognize from ALL sides that the 50-some comments on here so far are solid evidence for the volatility of adoption discourse.

Wow. Wish I could harness about 1/10th of the energy radiating from this post and the comments toward fixing the things that have make adoption both necessary and broken.

When you pare adoption down to its core, the haves benefit from the have-nots with far greater frequency than the reverse. Should it be any surprise to us haves when our actions are questioned? And shouldn’t we be questioning them ourselves?

Just had to add… thank you for taking the time to actually rebuttal some of the comments you get. When I was attacked by these people, I simply blocked their comments and hateful words. The bravery you have to stand up for yourself and not back down (61 comments later!) is impressive. Thank you for doing what I wished I could. Sending positive thoughts your way.

Thanks. There’s a fine line between letting everyone’s feedback be heard and letting people hijack the post/blog for their own reasons. I aimed for a middle ground between the two. I posted ALL replies for the first couple of days, and then started paring down.

But I don’t know if I think it’s particularly brave. I’m at a cynical place where I’m not sure ANYTHING done online is brave, per se. But I’ve seen it long enough and have run into it enough times myself that it was worth the predictable onslaught of hate mail. I’ve also seen it long enough to be able to practically write their responses FOR them. Nothing said surprised me. And by now, none of it bothers me in the slightest. That might anger some of them more than anything.

But again, it’s perhaps MOST unfortunate that the voices of strong, purposeful people concerned with adoption reform get lost and amalgamated among those far more interested in sniping, shaming and dividing people.

I too am impressed that you have hung in there and also tried to bring the discussion back to topic. I know I have been guilty of getting derailed from the topic at hand by those who bring in long-standing blog feuds from other places that have nothing to do with what was said here. I will try to be more aware of that, and not take the bait:-)

It is important for all of us, no matter where we stand, to separate our personal feelings about our own adoption situation, good or bad, from generalizations about “all” adoptees, birthparents, or adoptive parents. We also need to realize that refuting a theory or generalization is NOT an attack on one’s personal feelings or perception of their own life.

Nobody’s personal experience, yours, mine, or theirs, is the gold standard for all adoptions. If we all speak for ourselves, not in broad generalities, maybe we will all learn more and feel less attacked when someone has a different experience or disagrees,